Forgive me if I am new... but I totally agree.... On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:00:40 +0900, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> wrote: > zooko wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:45 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> >>>> I don't understand what are the potential problems, but so far I've >>>> been happy using stdeb to produce .deb's from my Python sdists. >>> >>> This is not the right solution for distributions maintainers: it is a >>> good tool for individual (it gives you uninstallation, etec...) but >>> .deb packages produced by stddeb are not debian-compatible, and >>> cannot be included in debian proper. This is not a critic of stddeb, >>> I think it is a very good tool and useful tool. >> >> I've heard things like this from Debian developers before, and I don't >> understand. Please provide me with more explanation. I don't intend >> to put words in your mouth, but I will offer a few guesses as to why >> you say stddeb can't be used for Debian proper: >> >> 1. You want the production of .deb's from Python packages to be done >> by a human instead of automatedly, therefore stdeb can't do it. > > I don't *want* human production (I think some Debian developers want to > - but that's not something that we need to care about I think). But for > non trivial packages, human intervention will always be needed: packages > which use autoconf cannot be automated either, because you may need > post/pre install scripts, you need to split doc/non doc parts, devel and > non devel parts, debug/release, etc... All of this is seen as a good > thing and some even required by Debian policy. > >> >> 2. You want the production of .deb's from Python packages to be done >> by a Debian developer instead of by the upstream developer of the >> Python package. > > That's mandatory, indeed. An *official* debian package can only be done > by a debian developer, almost by definition - only official debian > developers can upload .deb to official debian repositories. This has no > consequences for the python developer, though. > >> >> 3. It would be okay for this process to be automated (or >> semi-automated), but there's some flaw in the design of stdeb which >> means it will never be able to do it right unless stdeb is rewritten >> with a new design. > > There are some fundamental issues in *distutils* which make it > impossible to do it correctly at the moment, mainly the lack of metadata > about the installed files, but it looks like this point is already > understood and agreed on. I will work on the requirements, > > cheers, > > David > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
